User talk:Jeffgr9

March 2015

Information icon Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Gilbert Gottfried. Thank you. Bbb23 (talk) 21:58, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Hello, Jeffgr9, and welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Liz Read! Talk! 21:36, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Finding your way around
Editing articles
Getting help
How you can help

Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse!

Teahouse logo
Hello! Jeffgr9, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! Liz Read! Talk! 21:36, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]


WP:CAT/EGRS

Hi, Jeffgr9,
I've noticed you are categorizing some biographies in Category:American Jews. Wikipedia actually has very specific guidelines about assigning categories based on religion and ethnicity. Please read over Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality#Religion so you can familiarize yourself with when it is and when it is not appropriate to categorize individuals by religion or ethnicity. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 21:41, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Western Asia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lemba. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:45, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

September 2015

Please stop your disruptive behavior in the field of categorizing Jewish categories. Once the fact has been brought to your attention that your edit is contended, or even in clear violation of consensus, you must show consensus before you undo reverts or repeat the same edit. Ignoring the Wikipedia pillar of WP:CONSENSUS and editing disruptively, may be cause for disciplinary actions (as in edit restrictions). Debresser (talk) 18:01, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffgr9, if you would like to see some background on the debate over categories regarding "of Jewish descent", please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism/Archive 32#Category:European people by ethnic or national origin. The only consensus was to keep categories as they were at the time of the debate and make no changes since none of the proposed changes had a majority or support. I suggest if you want to introduce some changes to how categorization is taking place, begin a new discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism and see if a consensus now exists on whether your additions are appropriate. Liz Read! Talk! 22:33, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Liz Read! Talk! thank you for the information. We did in fact come to a consensus on the talk page of "Category:American people of Jewish descent" and this issue has been resolved. Thank you and hope you are well!! (V'L'Shanah Tovah!!) Jeffgr9 (talk) 04:06, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but do you remember we mentioned that this is only one article, and that it would make sense to establish a general consensus? Would you be willing to post on WT:JUDAISM and see if we can build some general consensus about this issue? Debresser (talk) 11:34, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Jeppiz (talk) 00:06, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

December 2015

Information icon Hello, Jeffgr9, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia, such as 2601:647:4c00:4d00:10:9c60:13cd:9bed (talk · contribs). Our policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this, and users who use multiple accounts may be blocked from editing. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please disclose these connections. Thank you. Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:19, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:19, 13 December 2015 (UTC) ! Thank you for your notice. I do not use multiple accounts to make edits, and I make edits when they are needed. In the case of the European diaspora, Jews are not a part of such, as read in the original template in which connected Jews to their Middle Eastern ancestry, and the Romani to their South Asian ancestry. On the top of the page it describes "white people ancestry worldwide" and the categories link to many white supremacist category links (i.e. Category:Anti-white racism)—all of which, by definition, are Anti-Semitic and Anti-Jewish, in general. Let me know if you have any questions about the edits I have made and I am more than willing to help. Thank you. Jeffgr9 (talk) 21:36, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at European diaspora. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted or removed.

  • If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
  • If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges.
As I see that you have already been involved in questioning definitions concerning Jews, I suggest that you take it to the talk page. Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:43, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I actually think that the article is problematic in that it isn't actually based on academic parameters. There's very little activity on the article, so I don't think that using the article's talk page is going to attract much editor input (if any at all). Perhaps the question of problems with the article should be posed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups. It's a pivotal article, therefore more experienced and interested editors are likely to want to discuss fundamental problems with it in a venue designed for those who work on ethnic group articles specifically. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:03, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Stop icon

Your recent editing history at European diaspora shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

I suggest that you self-revert here and stop editing without logging in order to elude being caught out edit warring per WP:Multiple accounts. In fact, I suggest that you do so promptly. Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:24, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Iryna Harpy (talk) , I had nothing to do with the other user "2601:647:4c00:4d00:10:9c60:13cd:9bed" editing the article. I stumbled upon the article and when I noticed certain details i.e. Jews and Armenians included as European when there are NO cited mentions of Jews on any of the pages related to European groups and the European diaspora, and I corrected them.
In addition, I am NOT "2601:647:4c00:4d00:10:9c60:13cd:9bed" and I did NOT revert the edits made in this instance.
From what it looks like, you reverted that user once.
I came across the article and made my edits, deleting all of the Jewish groups and the Armenians from the selection of those labeled under diasporic Europeans living in Israel——because both Jews and Armenians have their own Ethnocultural/Racial diasporas: Jewish diaspora Armenian diaspora, and are both Middle Eastern (or Western Asian, not European.
You reverted my edit, and I have yet to discuss it with you in the Talk Page.
It is news to me that the other user reverted your most recent revert.
I will discuss these edits with you further here or on the Talk page if you would like. Thank you for your notice. Jeffgr9 (talk) 05:44, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Stop icon

Your recent editing history at European diaspora shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

You are engaging in a slow edit war. Removing long standing, consensus content means that the WP:BURDEN is on you to provide reliable sources to support your removals. There is a discussion taking place on the article's talk page. I suggest that you continue to participate in it until a new consensus is reached. Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:37, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Iryna Harpy (talk), Thank you for your notice. I have already provided some sources related to Jews and whiteness for our discussion in the Talk page; however, I will acquire more and work toward consensus there. I read what you most recently wrote, and you have said yourself that there is a difference between the base ethnically European populations and the ethnically Jewish populations. I understand that the issues relating to Jewish intermarriage with indigenous European populations are confusing. I am suggesting that the Jewish narrative has never and does not fit the European narrative—especially when so many Europeans rally for Jewish destruction and do not consider Jews "white."
On the contrary, "white" people and other non-Jewish groups tend to only label Jews "white" when a.) they either do not know the differences between ethnic groups in general (e.g. their definitions of race may be as simplistic as just skin color, which is only one tentative factor of race), or b.) they want to make a statement about how Jews are not indigenous to Israel and therefore do not deserve to return to their homeland.
These problems are fixable with the right information present. If I may ask, what would prove to you that Jews are not European/"white?" What is your preferential basis for these findings? I will work on providing more information. Thank you. Jeffgr9 (talk) 00:51, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't gone through the talk page's archives for the article but WP:CONSENSUS on article content, where it hasn't been discussed before, remains as being the long standing article content as the consensus version (by virtue of its not having been challenged... if that makes any sense to you). I've posted to the WikiProject Judaism here, and it seems that some interest has been generated already judging by responses.
In a nutshell, I'm simply trying to treat the subject as a WP:CCC (consensus can change) matter, therefore have invoked WP:BURDEN as a formality in order to initiate a thorough dialogue. I don't think there are reliable sources that can prove or disprove that European Jews are part of the European ethnic community. Naturally, you're welcome to bring any sources you think worthy of being discussed to the table, but I suspect that it boils down to a WP:COMMONSENSE consensus.
Please bear in mind that I don't WP:OWN the article, so your input is as valuable and valid as mine or anyone else's. It's also best that further communications on this subject should take place on the article's talk page rather than have fragmented discussions going free-range across multiple user talk pages. That said, you're welcome to ping me or leave a message for me on any talk pages if you need assistance or another pair of eyes on an article. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:41, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Definitions of whiteness in the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Asiatic. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits

I've only reviewed a few of your edits so far, but those I looked at all have to do with adding Jewish identity to biographies. I have to ask, why is this important to you? Jonathunder (talk) 18:33, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed this as well. Going around changing "Canadian recording artist" to "Jewish-Canadian recording artist", or "American politician" to "American-Jewish politician" (just two examples) looks more than a little odd. —  Cliftonian (talk)  18:59, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The usual way of doing this is keeping the ethnicity in a biography section, but not adding it to the lead. Unless it is a very notable part of the notable activities of the person, in which it is usually self-evident. Debresser (talk) 20:12, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As per the process Debresser (talk) described, I do try to keep to traditional form by clarifying/adding content and citations to ethnicity in the biography or early/personal life sections; but, in some cases, there is either:
  • a). no ethnicity section of the biography,
  • b). no early/personal life sections,
  • or c.) the current ethnic/nationality descriptor in the lead either conflicts with the person's true, cited identity:
(i.e. L.L. Zamenhof was a Russian Jew/a Jew who was born and lived in present day Russia/Poland who contributed a great deal to Ashkenazi Jewish culture in writing "the first grammar of the Yiddish language" (Wikipedia))
or does not add description:
(i.e. Bernie Sanders is indeed American, but his Jewish heritage and practice proves essential as to why he is American (his family escaping the Holocaust/Racial/Anti-Jewish persecution), his perspectives on and decisions in life/politics/philosophy (e.g. social justice work), and further, the significance of his possible Presidency. Bernie Sanders would be the first Jewish President of the United States of America.)
In essence, I have noticed a great deal of Jewish ethnocultural erasure, not only here on Wikipedia, Cliftonian (talk) and Jonathunder (talk) , but also in other sources, from textbooks, to other scholarly accounts, to social media, to political debates. People who read Wikipedia articles should receive an honest portrayal of the content; by omitting key historical and ethnocultural facts, it not only contributes to the erasure of Jews as a People, but also of history itself. Jeffgr9 (talk) 05:06, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Add details on those historical and ethnocultural facts to the articles, then, in the proper place and with reliable sources. Don't just shoehorn the word "Jew" into the opening sentence, like some sort of perverse caveat as if to imply the people in question aren't really American, Canadian, Polish etc. People may get a very unfortunate impression. —  Cliftonian (talk)  08:49, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cliftonian (talk), As I explained above, if those details do not already exist within the article, I do add reliable sources within the proper passages. There are no "caveats;" adding the person's ethnicity/ethnocultural background, cited and backed-up, to serve as a clearer description of the person—especially in the lead—should neither pose a threat to anyone, nor make people fearful of the person.
And also, as I said above—American Jews are Americans; but the term "American" in itself has a different meaning for those who are indigenous to a land, versus those who sought refuge, and even more different for those who colonize a land.
Bernie Sanders' family sought refuge after escaping Europe as Jews; and this narrative proves integral to Sanders' growing up to become an upstanding being, fighting for Civil Rights, and making and supporting progressive policies during his terms in the Senate.
Being "Jewish-American" or "American-Jewish," or being labeled as such does not make one "un-American," or not a United States citizen; but it does contribute to the concept of American Jews' roles in society, than just the generic, un-linked, descriptor of "American." However, of course, when ignorant people question the loyalty of American citizens who share the background of previously-foreign/minority groups, those people represent the inherent flaws in how we talk about race/ethnicity, citizenship, and empathy in the United States and around the World—not the people questioned. By adding appropriate, cited, and thoughtful descriptors to the biographies of people, we expose readers to different backgrounds to which they may not have otherwise had.
Bernie Sanders is an American Jew; Leonard Cohen was a Canadian Jew; L.L. Zamenhof was a Polish/Russian Jew; these statements are cited and backed multiple times, and readers should know and learn to accept these Jews and all peoples and their ethnocultural backgrounds, instead of trying to whitewash their histories and heritages. Jeffgr9 (talk) 10:59, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeffgr9: per WP:OPENPARA, under section 3, part 2 (my bolding):
3. Context (location or nationality);
1. In most modern-day cases this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident, or if notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable.
2. Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, previous nationalities or the country of birth should not be mentioned in the opening sentence unless they are relevant to the subject's notability.
Bernie Sanders and Leonard Cohen, to give just two examples, are notable because of their respective careers in politics and music, and not because of anything to do with their Jewish backgrounds. It therefore does not belong at the top of the article under Wikipedia's Manual of Style. —  Cliftonian (talk)  12:00, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In the meantime, I wish you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year and thank you for your efforts to improve the project. Cheers, —  Cliftonian (talk)  12:32, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cliftonian (talk), Both Bernie Sanders and Leonard Cohen are certainly notable for their Jewish backgrounds—especially with Sanders' upcoming, potential Presidential candidacy, his family's story regarding the Holocaust, and his own story regarding social justice, as well as Cohen's Jewish blessings, lyrics, philosophies, etc. that he used to give to his audiences; so your claim that those items have nothing to do with the notability of those biographies is subjective, but also—even though you may not mean it—offensive. It is possible you may not share a perspective that understands how ethnocultural minorities feel when dominant society whitewashes their figureheads (i.e. through colonialism, herd mentality, etc.), but I suggest you look into such perspectives to help Wikipedia give thoughtful diverse accounts for its biographies and content.
Here is a recent video by Chelsea Ramsey (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPRnrfTHeL4 ), who explains the whitewashing of Jesus; Ramsey does not go all the way to suggest that Christianity perpetuates this problem of cultural appropriation (for which sites like these: https://bible.org/seriespage/7-appropriation admit is inherent to many peoples' concepts of Christianity), or even whether Jesus existed, but she shows how problematic it is to label figureheads by a power-based, dominant perspective, and not the perspective of the ethnocultural group(s) to which they belong (e.g. if he existed, Jesus was a Jew, a Middle Eastern Ethnoreligious group—with ethnicity and culture/religion intertwined—from Galilee in Judea, and therefore neither "white," European/Christian (distinctions made by Constantine I and his Roman successors, the Visigoths, the British, the Spanish, the Nazis, the KKK, and more), nor Arab/Muslim (distinctions made by some notable Muslim clerics)). Again, you may not know or be aware of these perspectives—but it is only a problem when one does not learn from and present these perspectives, especially in the face of dominant society.
In any case, Happy Holidays and New Year to you as well and thank you for your conversation. Jeffgr9 (talk) 17:17, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have misunderstood what i meant when I made reference to the "notability" of Sanders and Cohen. I meant that in the context of WP:NOTABLE—that is, why they meet Wikipedia's general notability guidelines (WP:GNG)) and have articles in this encyclopedia at all. They are included because they are respectively a prominent politician and a successful singer, not because of anything to do with ethnicity, religion, etc. Therefore, per the section of WP:OPENPARA quoted above, these things should not be stressed in the opening sentences of the articles. —  Cliftonian (talk)  22:00, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gertrude Weil

So on the Gertrude Weil article, your last set of edits added "Jewish" to the article in about a half-dozen ways, starting with the first sentence. We get it. She was Jewish and you want to make sure the reader can't possibly miss that fact. Jonathunder (talk) 22:27, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Jewish American activists, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jack Greenberg. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:39, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Steve Madden, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Irish. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:55, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DRN

Click here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Template_talk:Ethnic_slurs

ChronoFrog (talk) 21:51, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AN thread on Template:Ethnic slurs

Information icon This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Review of RfC on the classification of Jews on Template talk:Ethnic slurs". Thank you. Deryck C. 14:31, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

September 2016

For repeatedly undoing an edit based on very clear and explicit lack of consensus in a huge talkpage section.

Please stop making disruptive edits.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Debresser (talk) 16:17, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I undid an edit by one user as there was no consensus to remove the category tag, and then another edit for the same reason. Your edits were disruptive and you did not provide evidence to disprove the need for "People of Middle Eastern descent" to be tagged onto "People of Jewish descent," and that is why there was an argument—not the other way around. Jeffgr9 (talk) 18:24, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to what you claim, I explained myself very well, when I mentioned that there is a whole talkpage discussion about the issue, which reached a clear conclusion that there is no consensus for the addition of a Middle East descent category. I certainly can not be held responsible for the reverts by editors who haven't read that section, all the more so those who ignore it. Debresser (talk) 19:08, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Withdraw RFC as poorly worded". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 9 October 2016.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 04:50, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Withdraw RFC as poorly worded, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 05:39, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

American Jews

In your recent edit summary, you referred to another editor's changes as vandalism. Whether you agree or disagree with the changes Avaya1 made, they were not vandalism. Please re-read WP:VANDALISM, especially the section titled "What is not vandalism". Avaya1 used edit summaries and explained each of her/his edits. You should not have called them vandalism. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:01, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk , Avaya1 deleted cited material for being allegedly "random," but the material was in context with the passage in the article. The action may have not been malicious, but it was effectively WP:section blanking where such action was not warrented/needed. It is possible someone previously changed the beginning of the material, and so that made it seem as if the whole passage did not belong, but the citation and the passage both belong. Thank you for your inquiry, however. Jeffgr9 (talk) 03:40, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Jeffgr9. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

User:Balaganist hadn't previously participated in the discussion at Category talk:Jews, but you had. Therefore your edit was disruptive. Please be aware that disruptive editing is likely to get you blocked. Debresser (talk) 01:54, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't remove groups from templates based on dubious rationales. I've understood your removal to be in good faith, but such decisions (and ramifications) need to be discussed properly on the template's talk page. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:50, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Syrian_Jewish_communities_of_the_United_States

2601:84:4502:61EA:FD44:622D:9EAC:3BA (talk) 03:30, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop

Please stop your misguided and disruptive edits to Jewish categories. I am referring to those I reverted. Debresser (talk) 19:06, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I committed no such disruption. I added categories based on consensus in multiple discussions including a survey. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_talk:People_of_Jewish_descent#Introduction_to_survey Jeffgr9 (talk) 02:20, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That discussion reached no consensus, expected to keep as is, which is precisely what I am asking you to do. Debresser (talk) 05:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The decision was found in favor of keeping the category——as in including Jews as being of Asian/Southwest Asian descent——not preserving how the section was before such inclusions. Stop violating Wikipedia:I just don't like it, please. Jeffgr9 (talk) 07:42, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've re-closed the RfC as no consensus—please do not reopen the ANI topic. Start a new one, if you must. El_C 19:02, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
El_C, Your closure of the RfC supported deletion, which violates WP:NAC; whereas, Admin User:Softlavender's decision proposed closure with the possibility of a properly moderated RfC in the future. Please refer to my analysis of the questioned users before amending the original Admin's ANI closure notice. Jeffgr9 (talk) 19:08, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For the record: Softlavendar's close was a NAC, but El C is an admin . TonyBallioni (talk) 19:18, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, TonyBallioni, I must have misread their identifications. Apologies for the confusion, El_C, although, no offense meant by this, but I still find Softlavender's decision/notice more specific and it adequately followed NAC. Jeffgr9 (talk) 20:09, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your analysis, which claimed "there was only 1-2 confirmed users with few edits"—there was ChronoFrog; Bubbecraft; and PA_Math_Prof (and the IP, with a single edit). So taking all that into account, and since it was already a close call (as the original closer concurs), I erred on the side of consensus not having been reached. El_C 20:16, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response El_C. I think, because the issue was so close, the categories should thus be kept, because the RfC was determined by a survey/!vote, and given the arguments provided for both sides—with a significantly stronger, and heavier-sourced set of arguments for "keep"—removing the categories would cause more unnecessary distress/argument. Would it be possible if you could add that to your ANI decision? Thank you very much again. Jeffgr9 (talk) 23:53, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was not the closing editor, but I too have almost 10 years of experience on Wikipedia, just like him, and I think he made the wrong call by all accounts. Unless there are weighty reason to do otherwise, a discussion that is so evenly balanced despite broad input should never have been closed otherwise than "no consensus". That notwithstanding, and without going into the details, I think that WP:RS and WP:BURDEN as well as simple logic dictate that the stronger arguments were mine. That having said, I think your last post here was really misleading, and I'd ask you to stop the whining. Debresser (talk) 00:25, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Debresser, I was not whining. I was responding and asking a question of El_C. Further, Debresser, I disagree with your conclusion about your arguments—the amount and significance of the sources were in "keep" the categories' favor. Your constant dictating of how I may or may not feel on multiple occasions, feels like Wikipedia:Personal attack. Jeffgr9 (talk) 07:41, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I re-closed as no consensus. Whether that consensus or lack thereof was to keep or delete, is besides that point. El_C 08:23, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Control copyright icon Hello Jeffgr9, and welcome to Wikipedia. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.

  • You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
  • Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
  • Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
  • If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. However, there are steps that must be taken to verify that license before you do. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
  • In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
  • Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you can, but please follow the steps in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Moxy (talk) 11:14, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November 2017

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Racism in the United States shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:59, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did not violate the 3RR, but the other editor, Ivar, did. Thank you for the information. Jeffgr9 (talk) 21:37, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Jeffgr9. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Danny Hoch, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New York (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:47, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Jeffgr9. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

American Politics editing

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Lord Roem ~ (talk) 17:52, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I find it hard to say a good word about your edit

This edit was really unbelievable. Especially the edit summary claiming I violated 3RR. Man, I haven't edited that page in 2 years!

Why would I revert an edit without looking at its content? Because the editor who made it is edit warring, and that is reason for automatic revert, much like vandalism. Debresser (talk) 23:42, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please be warned that your revert was not justified, that is saying it nicely, and that further edit warring about this will lead to you being reported. FIRST establish consensus, THEN edit. Debresser (talk) 23:44, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Debresser I haven’t edited on that page for a WEEK and all summed up only twice! So your accusation of edit warring was wrong and your revert without looking at my content should be treated like vandalism and thus is justified to be reverted. You are the one engaging in edit warring. (Info Anonym (talk) 02:58, 24 October 2019 (UTC))[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:18, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Matthew Centrowitz Jr., you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Irish. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:44, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos to you for what you write.

I read your discussion of Jews as "ethnically non-Europead and non-white" and "perpetually oppressed by evil whites" and had a good laugh. Thank you. Let's start with the fact that there is no universal and factual criterion for "whiteness". In the United States, various time, by non-whites were considered: Irish, Germans, southern Europeans and Slavs and Jews. Now their all officialy white and majority jews and non-jews agree with that, but as "non-white" considered the direct descendants of the Spaniards from Europe: "White Latinos". So what? Recognizing or not recognizing someone as white does not do anything to your genetics and phenotype. Phenotypically: Irish, Russians, Germans, Native Jews, Arabs and North Indians are a Caucasian race (official anthrological term). European, Asian, African are just geographical terms and have no straightforwards connection with ethnicity, genetics, appearance and phenotype of a person. And finally, if you hate "ethnic Europeans" so much, why do you live among their descendants in a country that was built mainly by them, why using their language, technologies and etc? Go to Israel then: oh and you will find that most Secular (>50% of population) considers themselfs of European origin despite being Jewish. You need to learn more about the world, and not sit in the echo chamber of an "oppressed identity". All the best. HernánCortés1518 (talk) 18:37, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Adrienne Barbeau, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Armenian.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 17:53, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:34, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]